Linas.P

They look correct. Overall IS220d and IS250 had same brakes, the only difference is that depending on years they may have had vented or solid discs. I am sure that transition on IS250 happened in late 2006 / yearly 2007, but I don't know if IS220d got vented rear discs. In either case there are only 2 versions, so if this one looks visually correct it has to be the right one.

Yeas that is what I said above - people calling it "flushing", but it isn't if it doesn't use chemicals. I continue to call it "flush" because it uses same machine which could do flushing with chemicals. And indeed if ATF is very bad then it all needs to be replaced, the only problem that there is no way to drain it all like in engine. It is wasteful process and the only option is diluting it whilst engine is running and transmission is in the gear until old ATF from torque converter cycles and eventually get's replaced. The issue I have with using machine to "flush" it is for exactly the reason you mentioned - it does it in the same way as the fluid flows normally, meaning it pick-up fluid from pan, via filter, via torque converter and then back into gearbox and lastly control body. Meaning that if you really have "very bad ATF" and some dirt in transmission (most likely accumulated in the pan), then this all dirt has to go trough entire transmission before it get's flushed out. I mean yes sure - the very first thing after pan is the filter, so it will go trough filter before going trough transmission... however that is really taking a gamble on filter still being in good shape. In either case - I see "flushing" machine (even without chemicals) as very risky to use before cleaning what was on the bottom of the pan. If the pan is cleaned and it is only used to get old ATF from torque converter, then yes that is fine.

Which is what I would do, but it was not clear from your post. So basically you took the pan off, drained the fluid, replaced the filter and only then used flushing machine? or you changed the filter after flushing? I mean that is perhaps good compromise although I can see few caveats with both approaches. If you changed the filter before flushing, then you likely made it dirty again during the flushing and that kind of requires it to be replaced again. Whereas if you did it after, then it basically becomes two separate operation - flush first, then remove pan change filter and refill. I guess best of both worlds would be to remove pan before the flushing, drain as much dirty fluid as possible and clean the pan, but leave the old filter, flush it, then remove pan, drain again, replace filter and refill/check level. In such case one would get cleanest fluid, least risk of contamination, clean filter and guaranteed correct amount of correct fluid.

You are right - you would need to change the fluid few times to achieve decent results, I would say 2-3 would be ideal at which point you will probably have 85%+ of fresh fluid and anything after that would be diminishing returns. Even after 8-10 times there is no guarantee that 100% of fluid is fresh, because effectively you just continuously diluting existing fluid, not to mention it be not economically feasible to do. 8-10 times fluid replacement is the same cost as new gearbox... so why do it? That said using flush machine to replenish fluid probably achieves same as 2-3 fluid changes from pan, but again that is compromise - on the good side you achieve same level of change in single operation, on other hand it is way more aggressive method of doing it, which could lift dirt and push it into the gearbox, the filter does not get changed and it is questionable whenever correct ATF is used for this process or is it just generic ATF. So basically there are cons and pros with this approach.

Damn - so many takers for RC-F, it will be fierce competition few years later... I am in the same boat.

This is not a contentions topic at all and I agree that on different cars it can take longer to change water pump. I am pretty sure there will be some sort of Audi or BMW where entire engine needs to be removed before it could be done, but good mechanic should know that before starting the job, not figure out one the job (that is my key point).

I see your point, but ATF and engine oil are not comparable. Gearbox is sealed part, no combustion happens there and ATF is hydraulic fluid, not only lubricant. Engine is not sealed part, combustion happens in the engine, there is always some blow by and oil in the engine is mostly just lubricant (apart of VVTi system). So the way it works and what it does is very different and not really comparable. There should not be any "sludge" in gearbox, like it is in the engine (that is unless ATF was overheated) and all the small metal shavings should be either stuck to the magnet at the bottom or in the filter. Again - if transmission was used properly, not raced etc. there really should be no reason to flush it. And I have seen my old IS250 transmission innards at near 200k miles - it was sparkling clean, magnets were clean, so I really can't see why flushing would be needed. Likewise I guess we both agree that oil/fluid life is different in the engine and gearbox. If we say that engine oil is ideally replaced every 5k miles and gearbox fluid every 50k miles (I would argue even a 100k), then by same measure we can agree that engine does not need flushing until 100-150k... therefore gearbox shouldn't really need it until it has done million miles?! Finally, again this advise cannot be universal, because each car may have been used differently and have different issues. That is why my first question was - do you have issues with it? That is the main point - why take most aggressive approach in case where it is just preventative measure and gearbox works fine? In other hand if OP said - yes I have solenoid performance problem, I have tried "top-up", I have tried dropping pan, replacing filter and replaced 4L of ATF and it is still there, I would say - yeah sure, maybe as a last resort try flushing it. Appropriate measures to the problem one has...

Agreed. I am just saying this is UZ series specific (LS400/430, not 460 as that is already UR and has a chain), you can't replace water pump without replacing timing belt and that means double the effort and double the time, because it is two jobs not one.

Yes, agreed - most mechanics will ask "what car" before giving the estimate. As well on LS400, it takes "a day" (I would argue more like ~4 hours) because of timing belt, but then we need to understand this is not like-for-like comparison - it takes "a day" to do two jobs on LS400, water pump and timing belt, not just water pump. And this is probably yet another reason to ask for estimate and agree on the price before the job - if mechanic can't estimate the price just by looking at the car, then they don't know enough about it to work on it.

In my experience £40-50 is about normal for low-end garages. Good independent garages £60-80 would be about right. And dealerships are usually around £100-150 range. That is with VAT. Now the only problem is that it is very difficult to find "good independent" and most that I have experienced just charges more, without actually being any better than the cheapest garages. So I would say if they did good job and you paid £65+VAT, it is about normal. This puts water pump I guess somewhere ~ 1-2h range and at the cost of ~£100-150 for labour is actually normal price. I generally ask ahead of the time how much it is going to cost to make sure that not only rate makes sense, but time estimate makes sense. In the end of the day I don't care what is labour rate if they say that they will replace water pump for £120, it could be £60 and they consider it 2 hour job, or it could be £120 and they consider it 1 hours job or it maybe even be £240, but they are so good that they will do it in 30min. However, if I come to the place and ask them how much it will be to replace water pump and they say "we don't know we just charge on hourly rate" then it just shows they have no clue what they doing, because water pump is pretty standard job. Now fair enough - sometimes you could get a call few hours later and they may say - "look we took water pump off, but we noticed that something else is broken and it is going to takes us extra time to fix and it will be extra £80 for part and £60" and this is fine, as long as what they saying makes sense. But I would never leave my car to be repaired on "hourly rate".

Well in theory most of the grime should be on the bottom of the pan anyway, so by dropping it and letting old and dirty ATF to drip out, most of the grime should be out once pan is cleaned. On top of that by removing half of old ATF out, one needs less new ATF to refresh it (and yes indeed, after replacing only what is in the pan, it still leaves 50% of old ATF). Instead with this method there is a risk of lifting grime from the pan and push it into the transmission (literally all grime has to go through transmission before getting out, so real question is just whenever it get's stuck somewhere on the way) and it requires a lot more ATF to achieve similar results. I mean again - I get it, if there is already an issue which was not solved by replacing filter and half of ATF, then flushing with chemicals to remove remaining grime (after pan was already cleaned) could be a last option before starting to replace mechanical parts. But I think doing "flushing" on fully working gearbox without any issues is like looking for trouble. As well it could be summarised by saying that it is always best to use least aggressive method first before using more aggressive one (applies to almost anything). So the least aggressive would be to do so called to-up - say 2L of new ATF in, 2L of old ATF out every year, so that ATF is refreshed gradually not disturbing gearbox too much. If this is not enough or once in 5 years, maybe pan out, replace the filter and replace 4L ATF... and only when both of these are not enough - only then flushing with chemicals. At least that is what I would do.

Fair enough, I just wonder what is the benefit of "flushing" it with machine, over simply removing pan, changing the filter and refilling? I guess less mess? But I would be less confident about having correct amount of fluid afterwards.

I am not sure we using same definition for flushing then. If you didn't use additional chemicals to clean, then I would not consider that "flushing".

~3.5L is what the job takes when you replace filter and remove oil pan. So you basically get 4x1L ATF hence 4L.

I think your are about right - "lifetime" just probably means 10years/100k miles, because after that manufacturer and most owners considers car not worth fixing. There should be no problems after 100k miles (so you still have ~20k kilometres to go), but after that would be the time I would consider replacing ATF, but again - not "flushing" and especially not with some chemicals. In the end of the day it is your car, so if you trust the shop and they would fix gearbox if something goes wrong then go for it, I personally would stay with few litters of fresh ATF ("top-ups") or at most removing pan and replacing filter, which then takes about 4L of ATF. As I said before I would only consider flushing as last resort i.e. you have solenoid error of some sort, ATF and filter change did not help and then you have an option to either flush the box or replace it. That said I would like to replace filter after flushing, so kind of requires yet another visit to workshop to take the pan off and replace and even more ATF.

I am good with Lego, but I generally prefer to have all pieces when starting the project 😄 I think whoever is selling it realised that ordering individual pieces will cost fortune hence the sale price.

First questions I would ask - do you actually have any issue with your gearbox so you considering this? Not only because of "whenever you looking for issues", but as well because if this process causes some issues it will be easier to prove i.e. if there were no problems before you did it, then the process caused the issue, but if there were already issue and they became worse it would be very difficult to prove it caused further damage. Second question - does the company doing the job provides any guarantee or at least have suitable insurance cover to support you if you face issues? Finally, let's not confuse the two - ATF top-up, replacement, refresh etc is not "flushing the transmission" and it does not clean it. It is very simple process - drain ATF and replace it with same just new ATF. When you say cleaning chemicals, this is completely different process. I can't say for sure how it works and what it does, but it is fundamentally more complex process which cleans transmission internally before replacing the fluid. How do they ensure there is no "cleaning" chemical are left in the transmission after it is done I have no clue and if any left then how do they ensure that does not cause issues for transmission going forward I don't know either. In any case this is more risky than ATF change and I would not recommend it unless you already have an issue and this is the last resort.

My immobiliser stopped working after driving car to carwash and petrol station, haven't worked since November... Not sure if the issue can be related, which computer you think is overheating?

Any OE brands air filters would do, although £26 isn't that bad for genuine filter either. I did a mistake once getting K&N filter as well, for something like £46 and it was junk, it needs to be oiled, otherwise it won't filter, but if you oil it wrong then you will get issues with air flow meter etc. and no benefit for sure.

Ok so it is most likely sat-nav which is faulty, or somehow corrupted during the update (maybe before you got the car), or card contacts damaged. I guess there is slim chance that contacts are just dirty, but that is quite unlikely - you can try contact cleaner and carefully dab with the cotton buds (although the port is so small I am not sure how you get in there), then blow it with compressed air. I am not sure there is much else you can do, perhaps previous owner was switching cards for it to work in EU and UK and damaged something. In short it is only Lexus who can advise what is wrong. Now that car is 6 years old and Lexus Relax does not cover sat-nav (parts excluded -e. multimedia system), so it may be costly repair. However as Len has said, Lexus navigation is very poor so I am not sure it is even worth fixing it. I know the feeling that it is annoying when something doesn't work, but in this case it is really not worth fixing it. I know there are entire replacement systems with android, which provides genuine look and wide-screen. The cost is ~£400-600 and perhaps that would be better way to go. e.g. https://www.dvdgpsnav.com/blog/10-25-lexus-rc-android-head-unit-hd-touch-screen-upgrade-factory-screen-replacement/ Not sure how long ago you got the car, but if not long ago you may be able to discuss this with seller and agree that they will cover the costs of repair (ideally replacement with android unit), or part of it.

Probably... I have never seen Lexus with condensation in headlight. In my case I was polishing them and when I was cleaning some of the polish some water got inside (the headlight was obviously completely disassembled at the time). What I generally see, that when there is condensation in headlights, the car is generally older and have some damage - cracks etc. As well some cheaper or british cars tends to have that over the time, but for the rest it is usually damage, or poor work of somebody (not bothering to close the watertight latches for bulbs etc.).

Yes - GS300 brakes would fit IS220d, I am just not sure they would be "upgrade", generally it should be the same brakes between 250/220. What is considered an upgrade are the brakes from IS350 or GS350. The only thing to check is whenever you have solid or vented rear disks, on IS250 I know that for 2009 these would be vented, but IS220d I am not sure. That said if your brakes are not doing much, why do you think this is necessary an "upgrade issue", do your brakes actually works as they suppose to? Maybe your callipers are stuck or you have some other issues related with the braking system? I am not sure throwing "bigger brakes" would solve the issue. Overall, I think that you need to define what you mean by "don't seem to be doing much" and fix the faults first before looking for upgrade. To be fair I was never very happy with the brake performance on IS250, but it was not the case that car does no brake, it was simply the case that front disks were wearing like crazy. Obviously it was automatic car, but front disks would not even last 2 sets of pads... so 30k-40k miles for the disks are pretty poor and they dusted a lot. As such fitting bigger brakes from GS300 or IS350 is kind of upgrade on maintenance, they last longer and dust less, but they do not provide "more braking power". I guess they fade less quickly, so if you braking repeatedly (like on the track), then IS350 brakes would work better for longer, but just by themselves in one time they would not help your braking distance - the key part here are tyres and nothing else. Besides drilled disks not suppose to improve braking power, if anything they should be worse for power (less surface) and as you have experienced noisier. Drilled disks are mostly for show on normal cars and on racing cars like rally, they suppose to help to braking when disks are wet or dirty i.e. rally car gone over the puddle of mud and that mud is between disk and pad and if it has nowhere to escape, then car won't brake, but when there are holes the dirt and steam can escape and it allows for pads to make contact with disk. In very old racing cars there was as well issue with "pads gassing" when brakes were overheating, this gas was again preventing good contact and thus drilled disks were used. But as you can see - for normal car under normal circumstances this is never an issue... so drilled brakes are just for show.

Interesting video... As I said before the repair manual suggest that the next step (after like 27 steps of diagnostics) in my case it to check wiring for ID Box... Little problem there... somebody extremely smart in Lexus decided to put ID Box under the dash, so dash has to come out even before you can even measure any wires. In normal circumstances this is what has to be done regardless if I like it or not, but in my case the car is not worth the money to do diagnostics like that - it is £2000 car assuming the rest of the car is in good shape (which it isn't) and paying say £950 for dash out job is just not an option. This kind of begs a question of how these guys are planning to fix it without taking out the dash, especially if it is not just coding issue, but it is actual wire which is broken?! And the answer is - I don't know. I can guess that maybe with direct access to ECU they can "program-out" the immobiliser altogether... kind of dodgy, but to be fair I would go along with it... it is not like anyone is on lookout to steal banged-up 15 years old Lexus IS250. It would be cool if I knew the guy like in the video which can properly diagnose the car without starting to throw parts at it and without charging £1000s for the job.

You are right - most likely had accident and who ever done the repair didn't properly replace the damaged parts or at very least did no seal the "glass" properly. It isn't normal for headlights on Lexus to get condensation.

Vlad is right - to do it properly you basically need the heads removed and it would be extensive job. I was told £350 to get them "walnut blasted", which doesn't require the head removal, but at the same time it does not address exhaust valves. I did TerraClean on old car, but as I said it was kind of waste of money, I don't know how the valves looked before, I don't know if it cleaned them at all and I felt same as before. Not saying it does not work, but at the same time I haven't done it in the way that could prove whenever it did or didn't. One thing it definitely didn't do - my fuel consumption was a bit up and one of the claims was that by cleaning all the engine components it should improve fuel consumption, but it didn't. Suspect was "lazy", but not yet faulty o2 sensor, but it never been bad enough to bother me to investigate and get it fixed.